Public Bill Committee

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Clause 5

Power to make grants for probation purposes etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: Good morning, Mr. Bayley. In discussing the clause I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the Secretary of State’s ability to spend money. Subsection (1) gives him the power to make payments to a probation trust or
“towards expenditure incurred by any other person for any purpose falling within the probation purposes.”
One of the probation purposes that should concern him and anyone else providing probation services is, as stated in clause 1(1)(c),
“the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences”.
As the Minister will know, the problem of reoffending is caused partly by the innate characters of the people who become defendants in the criminal justice system and partly by the system’s inability to re-educate, or indeed to educate at all, those in its care whether inside or outside custody. As my party discovered during the informal evidence session that we arranged last week, there is a huge absence of speech therapy for people in the care of the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Wrexham want to intervene?

Ian Lucas: I merely point out that the reason there are no speech therapists is that when the hon. and learned Gentleman’s party was in power before 1997 there was an absence of training.

Edward Garnier: That may or may not be true. I am not an expert on what happened before 1997. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell us in a moment. He may well agree with what I am about to say.
During our informal evidence session we heard the views of Lord Ramsbotham on the need for speech therapy services to be given greater emphasis. If I may, Mr. Bayley, I shall try to paraphrase those views as best I can for the benefit of the Committee. I believe that that will better inform the Committee about one way in which the clause should be implemented if it stands part of the Bill.

Hugh Bayley: Order. If may help the hon. and learned Gentleman, I say first that I hope that the quotation will be short. Secondly, I remind him that the clause is on the mechanics of making payments to providers of probation services, not the details of each and every thing for which payments may be made.

Edward Garnier: I am sure that you are entirely right, Mr. Bayley. Let me therefore try to analyse the clause so that the discussion complies with your advice.
The title of the clause is “Power to make grantsfor probation purposes”. As I explained, one of the probation purposes is to rehabilitate, as set out in clause 1(1)(c), and one thing that is preventing the rehabilitation of offenders is the absence of adequate education. I am not making a criticism; that is simply a fact. During people’s treatment by the criminal justice system either in or outside prison or young offender institutions, there is a lack of education. That may have something to do with the type of people who come into the system, many of whom were absent from school for all sorts of reasons. Many of them come from broken homes or have been adversely affected by drug addiction or other social problems. Nevertheless it seems uncontroversial to say that about 70 per cent. of those who come into the custody system are illiterate and innumerate, as, sadly, are the same percentage of those who leave.
When we give the Secretary of State the powerto make grants for probation purposes, he ought to consider to what end the huge sums that he will have at his disposal should be deployed. If he makes payments to a probation trust or towards any other expenditure incurred for any of the probation purposes, one of the things that the Secretary of State ought to take into account when he is enjoying the powers under clause 5 is the poor state of language and comprehension services. That was one of the many points made by Lord Ramsbotham in the informal evidence session.
I see, Mr. Bayley, that your mouth is half open. I do not know whether that is because you are stifling a yawn or because you are about to give me further advice. I will pause, because I do not want to get on the wrong side of you.

Hugh Bayley: Order. I do not want to preventany member of the Committee from raising matters relevant to the services provided in prisons by contractors so engaged. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman might find that discussion of the nature of services provided is more appropriately raised under the next clause, on which he has an amendment about the qualifications of people contracted to provide services. That would allow for a discussion that is in order. Now, under clause 5, I am happy to have a debate about the nature and terms of the contracts for making grants—a debate about the money processes, not about all the services that those contracts might purchase. I hope that that is helpful.

Edward Garnier: At least I know how your mind is working, Mr. Bayley, which is helpful.
I want to have the discussion. Whether we have it under clause 5 or clause 6 is wholly immaterial to me. What struck me on reading clause 5 was that the discussion was relevant. If your view is different, I accept that as the view of the Committee. Therefore, I will resist making further remarks about the discrete area of spending until clause 6, when I will come back to it, either under the amendment or in a stand part debate. However, I have marked up the issue for discussion and the Minister is no doubt rapidly preparing remarks that will be wholly in agreement with mine.

Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am certain that we are going to have such a discussion shortly. I remind the Minister, before calling him, that we shall discuss the business of speech therapy and possibly similar matters that the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to raise when we come to clause 6.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Good morning, Mr. Bayley, and to the Committee. To reinforce your ruling, you are quite right that the mechanics of clause 5 concern the power that the Secretary of State can have. Under clause 3 we discussed contractual arrangements being put in place. That is how we see spending taking place. However, other occurrences, such as wanting to do a pilot project on research, for instance, mean that we want funding flexibility for such purposes. Clause 5 is a simple mechanism to allow us that flexibility, and I hope that the Committee will accept that it can stand part ofthe Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Officers of providers of probation services

Edward Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in clause 6, page 5, line 12, at end add—
‘(5) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, make provision as to the necessary qualifications for an officer of a provider of probation services.’.
We and the Liberal Democrats seek to insert a new subsection (5) at the end of clause 6. The clause is headed “Officers of providers of probation services”. That brings us straight into the controversy, which has racked the Labour party and caused a difference between the Government and the Liberal Democrats, concerning the provision of probation services through non-state actors, that is to say, the private sector and the third sector—the charitable sector. I do not want to open up that issue again, at least not for the moment.
Under the clause an officer of a provider of probation services is
“an individual who is for the time being authorised under this section to carry out the functions of an officer of a particular provider of probation services”.
That individual can be authorised as an officer of the relevant provider by the Secretary of State or by a provider of probation services. One can often be forgiven for thinking that the Bill’s language becomes somewhat tautological. Subsection (4) states:
“The reference in subsection (1) to the functions of an officer of a particular provider of probation service means—
(a) any functions conferred by an enactment (whenever passed or made) which are exercisable by an officer of that provider; and
(b) anything which is required or authorised... to be done by an officer of that provider.”
Let us assume that under clause 5 the Secretary of State has thought it appropriate to consider the sortsof things that need to have money spent on them. I assume, given your ruling, Mr. Bayley, that having reached a conclusion about how he should do it, he will then, under clause 6, work out who he should get to do it for him, either one of his direct Crown employees or someone from the private or third sector.
As I said a moment ago, the standard of literacy and numeracy of the people in the care of the criminal justice system is lamentably low. I will not go into a long sociological or historical analysis of why that is. I will simply say that it is uncontroversial that the majority of those who come within the grips of the court system, who are arrested by the police, who go to prison or who are put into the care of the probation service or other, as they will shortly be called, providers of probation services, simply cannot read or write to a level above the age of 11. They are unemployable. They are incapable of going down to the jobcentre and reading the job cards in the windows and on the stands. 
I want to see whether I can persuade the Government to give an undertaking that they will devote more of the money that the Secretary of State will have available under clause 5 in a number of discrete areas. I particularly want to concentrate on speech therapy and adult comprehension. If one visits prisons or young offender institutions one finds excellent officers doing very difficult work with very difficult people. One also finds teachers who, under very difficult circumstances, are trying to teach basic literacy and numeracy, computer skills and all sorts of other things to the people in their care. I dare say that such provision is also available under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, when one considers the requirements that a court may impose within the community punishment system.
What worries me is that far too little is being done in an effective way to improve the levels of literacy and numeracy of many of the people who come before the courts and who find their way either into prison or into the community punishment system. That matter was discussed in our informal, non-parliamentary evidence session last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who has taken a particular interest in this subject, asked Lord Ramsbotham about his view of the levels of speech therapy and related subjects in the system. Broadly, Lord Ramsbotham said that there was a woeful lack of them. Those of us attending that session came to agree that that needed to be improved.
Without quoting at length, I shall mention one or two of the points that Lord Ramsbotham drew to our attention, because I think that that will be of value to the Committee. I have here the first typescript of the compact disc that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate handed to the Minister last week. We will go through it to see whether we can help him to fill in the names at places where the recording is indistinct.
I promise you, Mr. Bayley, that I shall not quote at length, but it is important that the Committee has some understanding of what Lord Ramsbotham said about speech therapy. He said that
“the moment I started going to prisons, I said that of all the interventions that could and should be made in prisons, education was by far the most important and could be the most effective in preventing reoffending.”
He went on to ask people in prisons what was being done about the provision of education, basic skills and so on, and what sums of money were involved. In due course, he asked parliamentary questions, too. Having discovered that young offenders in Brinsford young offenders institution were funded at £438 a year, those at nearby Werrington at £1,500 a year and those at Thorn Cross at £2,400 a year, he wanted to know why exactly the same type of people going to exactly the same type of custody institution were being funded for that form of education at completely different levels. It seemed to him that there was no clarity of direction in the delivery of the service.
He then asked those in the Prison Service andthose providing the service on behalf of the Home Office why they had got into that state, and he was given all sorts of explanations. He was told that some people were described as being dyslexic, and some as having other intellectual problems and learning difficulties, but he discovered that there was no uniform, thought-through approach. He also discovered that the more prisoners exercised their brains in communication, in understanding each other and in getting on with other people, the less likely they were to resort to violence or to return to criminal activity when they came back into the community.
My point, which I do not want to labour, is that under both clause 5 and clause 6 the Secretary of State needs to concentrate hugely, if we are to reduce the level of reoffending, particularly by young people. We need to do a lot more to ensure that those who provide probation services, either within the current national probation service or through the potential providers, are equipped by training and resources to deliver literacy and comprehension skills. It is an obvious point, but it is an obvious point that keeps being missed.
The hon. Member for Wrexham has made what might be called a party political jibe. I am not making a party political point; I am making a point on which I should have thought there is general agreement. We have a public interest in reducing the number of offenders, and a moral duty to improve the conditions of those who go into prisons or YOIs and come out again, rather than simply permitting the high levels of reoffending to continue. Nearly 80 per cent. of young offenders reoffend within two years of release, and the rate for adults is 65 to 67 per cent. It costs nearly £40,000 a year to house an adult offender, and it probably costs twice as much to house a young offender. That is simply a waste of our constituents’ money. Without increasing Home Office expenditure, we could invest some of that money more wisely and effectively, if the Secretary of State were to apply his spending powers under clause 5 in the manner that I am describing.
My purpose in moving the amendment is to draw attention, by means of a debating device, to the problem. Of course, we want the Secretary of State to make provision for the necessary qualifications for an officer of a provider of probation services, and there should be no dumbing down of the expertise and professionalism of graduate and long-term professional probation officers. We want the self-esteem and professional reputation of those who work in the service to be maintained, and we do not want amateurs coming in and trying to make a cheap fist of the job. Whether in the public or private sector, those who are providing the work on behalf of the public need to be of the highest calibre and have the highest level of training and qualification, rather than chaps who think, “Oh well, I will give this a go.”
In addition to ensuring that the providers are properly trained and professional, the Secretary of State must concentrate on the terrible state of our literary services in the criminal justice system. If we were to get that even half right, we would stand some chance of improving the lot of the public and of those who come within the grip of the criminal justice system.

Mark Hunter: I want to make some specific comments in support of the amendment, which is not surprising given that my name is attached to it along with those of the hon. and learned Gentleman, other Conservative Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion.
In advance of the Minister’s response, I find it hard to understand what he has against the amendment. I hope that he will accept that, like so many of our amendments, it was tabled in the spirit of co-operation and trying to improve the Bill, and not to put unnecessary obstacles in the way. The amendment seeks only to ensure that those who might be involved in providing probation services are appropriately qualified, which is an eminently reasonable reassurance for hon. Members to seek. It would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure that those who are working as probation officers for contracted-out providers are as well qualified and well trained as current public sector probation officers.
Other hon. Members have explained why the amendment, which is important, is needed. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are fortunate in this country to have high-calibre, committed probation officers in the public sector. They are dedicated men and women who do a thoroughly professional job, sometimes in difficult circumstances. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is self-evident that the quality of the service, both rehabilitative and custodial, depends on the individuals who provide it. The Committee needs to know how prisoners will be dealt with and supervised effectively, with the care and safety of the public foremost in mind, and how we are going to aid the rehabilitation process. In all those instances, we require appropriately and suitably qualified men and women to do the job.
Clause 3, which opens up the system to contracted-out services, could allow those without professional qualifications to work on tasks for which training is absolutely vital in helping to protect the public and to reduce reoffending. Without the high calibre of trained probation officers that a national probation service delivers, there is a danger that the effectiveness and quality of service delivery will fall. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on that matter.
It is essential that professional training is regulated and that the Secretary of State has a duty to determine that regulation. The training should be thorough and of sufficient duration to give staff the effective skills to do the job properly. At present, it is a requirement in law that a probation officer has a certificate of qualification in social work, a CQSW, or a diploma in probation studies, which is a two-year qualification that can be obtained through distance learning, college tutorials and supervision as part of a probation team. Staff have a protected case load during that period, and the mixture of learning and training has allowed probation officers to do their job effectively and efficiently. Without that requirement, we cannot guarantee that the calibre of officers will be up to the standard that the system requires.
Agencies require staff of a certain standard, and the multi-agency public protection scheme needs staff with both qualifications and significant experience. The Home Office model notes that those who pose the greatest risk in categories 3 and 4 must be supervised by qualified and experienced people. Hon. and right hon. Members, who, like me and the Minister, have experience of metropolitan authorities know that in London and most metropolitan councils that group of offenders far exceeds the number of trained probation officers, hence our concerns that only people who are suitably and appropriately qualified will be in a position to carry out those tasks. It is a legitimate matter of concern, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Neil Gerrard: I shall make one brief point, as I share some of the anxieties that have been raised about the effects of the clause as drafted. At present, national qualifications are required for probation officers, so there is a national standard. However, subsection (2) states:
“An individual may be authorised as an officer of the relevant provider by—
(a) the Secretary of State; or
 (b) a provider of probation services (whether the relevant provider or any other provider) who is authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.”
Paragraph (a) would allow a national standard to be maintained, but paragraph (b) seems to contract out the decision whether someone can be appointed as an officer. Subsection (2) seems to allow the title “probation officer” to disappear to be replaced by something else, and it is a move away from the national standards. That worries me and many other people, too, especially because the Home Office currently has specific requirements in respect of people who pose the greatest risks. I hope that the Minister can reassure me about how training will be regulated and that one of the effects of subsection (2) will not be that somebody other than the Minister or the national probation service will decide whether someone is or is not allowed to act in the sort of functions that are currently always carried out by trained and qualified probation officers.

Ian Lucas: I share some of my hon. Friend’s concerns. Proper training in order to carry out any professional role is extremely important. I am sure that we will hear some reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister on that in a moment.
I rise in response to an unanticipated debate on speech therapy services. This is an issue to which I have given some attention and interest. I want to respond to the accusation that I was indulging in a party political jibe. I am a politician; we are discussing the reading capabilities of adults in our prisons, and I see that most of those individuals are unable to read due to the lack of resources when they were at school.
I particularly focus on the issue of speech therapy as I am aware from special schools in my constituency that there is a lack of capacity in the system. There are too few trained and qualified speech therapists, and access to those professionals is extremely important, not just for adults but for our children. I have been working in my constituency with the local special school and also with the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education to develop its speech therapy courses in north-east Wales for the benefit of young peoplein particular. It is, of course, always necessary for resources to be invested to enable training to take place and I am very pleased that the Government have increased the number of speech therapists by almost 2,000 since 1997.
I responded to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough because it is always easy for Opposition parties to suggest that more and more money should be spent on particular services. It is easy for the Liberal Democrats to do so because they are perpetually in opposition. As for the Conservatives, it is particularly ironic that there are individuals and institutions in my constituency suffering because of past lack of investment. I responded because I had myself been trying to ensure that more people were trained, and that is now happening because of increased investment by this Government.
It is, of course, essential that offenders in institutions receive help with and professional advice about reading. As the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly pointed out, that is the first step that they need to take to secure employment. That requires sustained investment because speech therapy is a professional course that needs professional training. I am sure that there will be reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that that training will be provided in the future. It is extremely important that all parties recognise that this area needs to be focused on if we are to prevent reoffending.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank hon. Members for speaking to the amendment and for the contributions that they made to an interesting debate.
I want to make sure that the Committee are not confused about the provision of contracts. We had long debates about contracts on Tuesday under clause 3. I made reference to the offender learning and skills service, OFLASS, and we discussed some of the issues of education provision. I was asked about that by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.
Clause 3—not clause 5, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out—gives us the opportunity to see how the contracts will be drawn up, how they will be developed and how the money will be spent. Clause 5 contains the mechanism for additional funding for flexible arrangements as I outlined in my earlier contribution.
I shall first discuss the amendment and then comment on the wider debate about education and speech therapy. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that education is the key to what we want to achieve, and his points and those of Lord Ramsbotham deserve to have time devoted to them.
Nothing in the Bill will affect the professional qualifications of the probation service. We will ensure that all providers are capable of providing appropriate, high-quality services monitored by an assurance and accreditation process appropriate to the service and its contract value. That process will include assurances about staff training and qualifications to ensure that there is an appropriately skilled staff.
The amendment shows a misunderstanding of what we mean by an “officer of a provider of probation services”. The term is not intended as a description of a particular grade of staff any more than is the current term, “officer of a local probation board”. It is intended to encompass a range of probation staff and, in due course, other providers’ staff who will carry out a range of tasks. In developing a market we need to retain the current flexibility on the qualifications required for a particular task. That is not defined in legislation and should not be in the future. Contracts will specify the skills, experience and qualifications required for particular tasks and we remain absolutely committed to high standards.
In our discussions on Tuesday I mentioned the new framework of support, training and qualifications for probation officers that the National Offender Management Service is considering. I have said all the way through the debates that the Bill is not about doing things on the cheap or dumbing down but about maintaining high standards and ensuring that probation officers are adequately trained in the widespread tasks that they are required to do. Even now there is a distinction between probation officers and probation support officers, and it is important that the right qualifications exist for the right services. We do not intend to upset those arrangements; indeed, we want to strengthen and develop them.
I am grateful for to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for his points on education and speech therapy. I know that he has a long-standing record on the matter, so it was heartening to hear what he said. I am pleased to acknowledge the expertise of Lord Ramsbotham, who was the chief inspector of prisons between 1995 and 2001 and made a great contribution. However, as I have said to him, more recently he has been ultra-critical of what the Government are trying to do and has not acknowledged the amount of investment that has been made. I was happy to meet him to discuss his aspirations on speech therapy. He and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough are right to say that we need to concentrate on it to tackle reoffending and give people the tools to express themselves and build up their skills.
I said on Tuesday that 10 per cent. of all basic skills are learned in prison, which I am quite proud of, and that employability rates have gone up. I am pleased to tell the Committee that Lord Ramsbotham has been able to find the requisite number of members to set up an all-party group. I know that he has invited my noble Friend Baroness Scotland to address one of its first meetings. The hon. and learned Gentleman can rest assured that the issue will continue to be debated at great length and with a great deal of involvement from hon. Members of all parties.

Nick Hurd: It would help me, and perhaps the rest of the Committee, if the Minister could clarify how many establishments, including secure training centres, lack speech and language therapy.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall come on to that. I am just setting the scene for the debate on the issue.
The Committee will remember that the Government introduced a Green Paper, the cross-governmentpaper, “Reducing reoffending through skills and employment”. It covered employability, the links between skills training and the labour market, and the need to provide offenders with a direct route into employment and employment support. The aims stated in the paper built on the existing prison and probation service initiatives, and the next steps action plan was launched at a conference in December.
If we look at what the Government have done about the resources that enable prisons to conduct work in education and training for offenders, we see thatthere have been substantial increases in investment:£57 million in 2001-02, £151 million in 2005-06 and £156 million in 2006-07. A further £30 million has been secured from the European social fund by the Learning and Skills Council for initial provision over two financial years, 2006 and 2007. I hope that the Committee will accept that the investment is there and that there is a thrust to achieve our objectives.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to the hon. Member for Buckingham, who has raised the issue on a number of occasions, not only in questions in the House, but in conversation. He feels deeply about the matter, which is not a party political issue. We all believe in securing improvements, in order to tackle our reoffending rates.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, between September 1997 and 2005 the number of speech and language therapists employed in the NHS increased by 1,888 or 38.8 per cent. The Department of Health expects there to be further increases in the NHS speech and language therapy work force as a result of delivering the NHS plan forecast of 30,000 more therapists and scientists by 2008—2,000 higher than the base line.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister tell us how many of the speech therapists in that extra 38 per cent. now employed in the NHS have been dedicated to work in the prisons and custody system?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall endeavour to do that—hopefully the information is here. If not, I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The vacancy rate for speech and language therapists in the NHS has fallen from 2.5 per cent. in March 2005 to 1.1 per cent. in March 2006. The number of training places for SLTs is increasing: it was 797 in 2005-06, up 74 per cent. since 1999-2000. Speech and language therapy services are already available for young people housed in young offenders institutions and secure training centres. Even though the therapists are not employed directly by or based in such institutions, they are available as specialist referral in all primary care trusts. We are examining what more can be done to improve mental health assessments and services for young offenders in the Prison Service estate. We are looking to see what we can do about the further scope and timing of announcements.
Young offenders institutions provide mentalhealth in-reach services to meet the needs of thosewith severe and enduring mental health problems. The level of service provision required is estimated bythe local prison health assessments, which inform commissioning of appropriate services. The services were previously adult focused. Four dedicated units for girls aged 16 and 17 have opened. The new units focus on being child centred. The needs of young people are identified by multi-agency co-operation, including workers from youth offending teams and staff specialising in discipline, education and health.
The facilities are there, and there is a major and ongoing expansion programme to secure equitable geographic access across the country. The number of beds for those young people with mental health needs who are in contact with the judicial system will increase from 28 in two units in 2003 to a planned 88 beds in six units by 2008. I have outlined to the Committee the massive growth in investment in education and how there is now a focus on mental health issues, particularly speech and language therapy.

Nick Hurd: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. That was a long list, but I am not sure that I heard the answer to my question, which was how many institutions lack speech and language therapy today.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I think that I answered that by saying that the provision is there, although not specifically in each centre. To give clarity, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and also give the information to the Committee, so that there is no misunderstanding about provision.
I hope that we have met the need of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to have the discussion, which he was right to raise. The work of the all-party group will continue, and the Government will continue to focus on the issue. I am sure that we will return to it in future. I hope that I have explained why it is not necessary to move in the direction suggested by the amendment. We do not want to affect the professional qualifications in any way; they will be at the heart of what we are trying to achieve.
The hon. Member for Cheadle talked about what the safeguards would be if we were to dumb down. One is the inspectorate, which is independent and will, I am sure, identify any deterioration in provision of service. That will not happen, however, because we are talking about developing people, not dumbing down. I hope that, having heard my explanation, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will withdraw his amendment.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cheadle, for Walthamstow and for Wrexham for their contributions, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood for his interventions.
 It was good of the Minister to deal as comprehensively as he could with the points that were made. However, this is not as easy a matter to deal with as the Minister is trying to imply. I am sure that, on a national and general level, the Government have invested more money in speech therapy in the national health service. If the Minister tells me that the numbers went up by 38 per cent. between 1997 and 2005, I am sure that he is right. However, our problem is the divided nature of the provision of speech therapy. The Home Office will say, “Speech therapy is nothing to do with us.” Similarly, in the Prison Service and more widely in the Home Office, there is a feeling that it is a good idea to have speech therapy, but that it does not come within their remits—it is really a matter for the Department for Education and Skills or the Department of Health. The DFES will say, “This is not strictly an education matter; it is cross-curricular or cross-departmental, and therefore nothing to dowith us.”
Local learning and skills councils do not input speech and language therapy into the prison system; speech therapy is funded by the health service. But how is the health service arranged throughout the country? Through primary care trusts. It is for the PCTs to work out in their budgets how they deploy whatever money they have on speech and language therapy. If the PCT in an area where there happens to be a prison or a YOI decides that that comes way down its list of things to do—it reckons that its priority is to fund health services for people outside, not inside, prison; prisoners come at the end of the queue—and then runs out of money, as so many PCTs have done, speech and language therapy in the criminal justice system is never arranged.
There might well have been a 38 per cent. increase in the number of speech and language therapists in the NHS, but that has no bearing on this issue. It is not the answer to the absence of speech and language therapy in the criminal justice system. We have some 17 YOIs and many other secure training units across England and Wales, and I believe that it costs some £33,000 a year to employ a speech therapist. It costs nearly £80,000 to house every young offender. If those young offenders keep coming back because they leave the institutions inadequately equipped to deal with life outside, we will not have to spend very long doing the mathematics to realise that it would be worth while not to spend more money—I am not, as the hon. Member for Wrexham suggests, a typical Opposition spokesman demanding that the Government should spend more money—but to work out how to sensibly, intelligently and strategically manage the resources that we have. Spending £33,000 a year on a speech therapist who produces results that can be measured in a reduction in offending and reoffending is probably a better use of public money than spending £80,000 a year on a young offender who will reoffend and come back within two years and will very likely end up in the adult custody system.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not disagree with the outcome that the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to achieve: to find a better way of spending that £80,000. If speech therapy is the way, then we should do that. I agree with him. But I did not say that it was easy. I said that the framework is now in place. He will know that the health provision in the prison estate has been transferred to the PCTs. Great strides are being made in the provision of health care for prisoners. That goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve. The solution to reoffending is community wide and service wide, and it comes not just from the provision of the Home Office, the Prison Service or the probation service. The hon. and learned Gentleman will argue that the pace is not quick enough, but the framework is in place to deliver what he wants to achieve. I was merely pointing out the Government’s record.

Edward Garnier: The logic of the Minister’s saying that he agrees with me is that he should have done something about it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am doing something about it.

Edward Garnier: Of course I accept the Minister’s integrity. I am sure that he believes exactly what he has told me. The problem is that there does not seem to be any strategic thinking in his Department to put this in place. I remember this happening in 1995-97 when Conservative Ministers told us that they were spending £X million nationally on this, that and the other, but it had no bearing on what was happening in real life. This Government have fallen into that trap rather earlier than we did.
We now see perfectly decent Ministers like this one standing up to say that the Government have increased by 38 per cent. the provision in the NHS. But these are two ships passing in the night. A 38 per cent. increase in NHS provision would be fine if it had an effect on speech therapy services in the prison system. It does not. That is what I must try to get the Minister to understand. That is why I cannot accept his invitation to withdraw the amendment.
Even though I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Cheadle on the issue of contestability, I am concerned that the Government are not being sufficiently rigorous in demanding high standards and qualifications from those people in the non-Government system for the provision of probation services. Competition is necessary and is politically, intellectually and in every other sense healthy. But I want to have fair competition and I want to have competition between qualified probation officers who currently work in the system and people of equal standing in the private and charitable sectors. What I do not want is for the probation service to have one hand tied behind its back and to have to compete with what I would loosely call “amateurs”. This is far too important an area of public safety for unqualified amateurs to be dabbling in. I see that the Minister has become excited, so I shall give way to him.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is amazing what excites me these days. I cannot let the hon. and learned Gentleman get away with the tag “amateurs”. He should be able to give us a description or an example of who would be an amateur providing a service that the current probation service provides. I am intrigued to find out who these amateurs are.

Edward Garnier: I would be able to give the Minister an example if he could provide me with rather more detail of what he has in his head. The problem is the vagueness of the Bill. Under clause 3(3)(c) the Secretary of State is to be given powers
“to make contractual or other arrangements with third parties for purposes connected with the probation provision”.
We do not know who these people are. I have an idea, and I have an idea who I would like to see doing this sort of work, but I have absolutely no idea what will be in the contractual terms. The Minister told us last week that he was getting into the dangerous territory of the difference between statutory and contractual terms. It seems to me that the policy should be that the contract should reflect the statute. I have every confidence in the Minister’s ability to draw up a contract, but the public need more reassurance. We need to know who the people are and precisely what qualifications they are to have. We do not get even the drafts of the regulations, let alone the detail of the lists of probation service providers.
I have a number of worries, although I share the Government’s view on contestability, unlike many Labour Back Benchers not only in this Committee but outside it. I regret to say that I am going to be disobliging and invite the Committee to express its opinion about the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Abolition of local probation boards and transfers of property etc and staff

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I want concentrate the first part of the clause title, namely the abolition of local probation boards, subject to one or two remarks that may be more appropriate to schedule 2. The Government’s apparent policy is to reorganise the probation service for the third time in a short period and to reorganise the structures that are provided to secure probation services in England and Wales for the public’s benefit. In 2001, the national probation service was set up and probation boards, broadly coterminous with the counties of England and Wales, were established to ensure local provision of probation services. Despite a number of criticisms at the time, that system has worked quite well. There have been difficulties with some aspects of provision in particular areas, but the system is barely five years old, for goodness’ sake, and the Government want to turn it upside down all over again. It is therefore unsurprising that the proposal is causing a great deal of controversy. It is the cause of concern about staff retention and attracting new people to probation work, and a matter of great political controversy, as I said on Second Reading and in earlier sittings of the Committee.
I take the example of my own county of Leicestershire, where the probation board, which operates for the city of Leicester and for Leicestershire and Rutland, is one of the best performing. It is well led and well staffed, and has hit more of the Government’s targets than many other local probation boards.
If Leicester and Rutland probation board is doing so well, why will it have to be reorganised? Why will the people who work within it have to devote as much time to dealing with the reorganisation as they do to the service itself? Why will the probation board’s limited resources from the Home Office—there is a 0 per cent. budget increase over the next three years—have to divert money and management time to reorganisation instead of getting on with the job?
I do not accept that the establishment of NOMS, with a chief executive, regional offender managers, and the bureaucracy, additional staff and expenditure that are involved, is a good thing, but even if I did accept it, I would still ask why those officers and that bureaucracy cannot continue to deal with local probation boards rather than the new probation trusts. Ministers have not thought adequately about the effective delivery of a vital public service.
It is very easy to sit in Whitehall drawing graphs, maps and plans and having the joy of being powerful and reorganising things without understanding the effect of that paper exercise on real people doing real jobs on behalf of real members of the public. For the life of me, I simply do not understand the point of replacing local probation boards, which have only recently been set up, with probation trusts, which are the equivalent of primary care trusts, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s understanding of the proposal.
We all know the financial problems that primary care trusts have had, and I do not need to be too much of a Cassandra to anticipate that under this Government’s management probation trusts may soon end up in the same parlous state.

Diana Johnson: This is the second time that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned primary care trusts and funding problems. I want to put it on the record that only a small minority of PCTs are in deficit, not the majority. Will he reconsider his remarks?

Edward Garnier: No, but I am grateful that the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to contribute to our proceedings. No doubt her remarks will have been noted. We are not here to discuss PCTs, but even assuming that the majority—

Hugh Bayley: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated me.

Edward Garnier: I was using PCTs as an analogy and as an example of poor Government reorganisation. Even if the majority are not in deficit, that still leaves a huge number of individuals who are affected by PCTs that are in the red, which goes back to our discussion on the previous amendment. If PCTs, whether they are in or out of funds, place the provision of speech and language therapy in the criminal justice system at the bottom of their priorities, it does not make much difference.
I have yet to find a logical, rational and cogent reason, emanating from any Home Office Minister, on the need for a change from local probation boards to probation trusts. Abolition of local probation boards and transfer of properties, and so on, are matters that the Government have yet fully and properly to explain. Although there are one or two matters of detail that they want to deal with under schedule 2, which hangs from clause 7, there has, as far as I can see, been no proper and public explanation of the need for such a managerial change.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there has been no output from Government about why we want to propose probation trusts instead of the existing probation boards. On Tuesday, when we were discussing, I think, clause 4, I tried to explain why we are setting up the trusts and how we are going to go about it. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the report of Tuesday’s sitting, and I am sure that he will learn something from it. I shall reiterate the position a little, however.
The probation service staff retention issue keeps coming up, and I asked for the facts on that. Although I accept that there is legitimate concern about the future, which has quite rightly been fuelled by a union that represents the many members working in probation, that is one reason why I want to make progress on the Bill and on the further discussions on future provision that will flow from it. There will be no big bang. The question is how to proceed to reduce reoffending. The Bill was not plucked out of the air. It is a result of the Carter report, which I am sure has been read by Opposition Members. That pointed the Government in the direction that we are taking.
On recruitment and retention, the rate at which probation staff leave the service—the attrition rate—dropped from 10.1 per cent. in 2003-04 to 9.2 per cent. in 2005-06. That compares very favourably with the rest of public service. So although individual issues have been raised—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the individual case of the  probation employee who had been in service for25 years—the facts and figures are not consistent with people leaving in droves and being unhappy. I hope that that deals with that point.
On clause 7 and schedule 2, clearly we need to consult further on probation trusts, and we shall. Clause 7 is consequential on preceding clauses in that it provides for local probation boards to be abolishedas the preceding clauses are brought into effect. Subsection (2) gives effect to schedule 2, which contains provisions relating to transfer of property and staff from boards to trusts and to other probation service providers, and between the different probation service providers. It is very straightforward and is consequential on what was decided in clause 4.

James Brokenshire: Will the Minister explain how the provision will be brought into force in clause 7, and the timing on that? The Minister has said consistently that he favours a gradualist, rather than a big bang, approach. However, clause 7 seems to do away with all probation boards in one swoop. It would help the Committee if the Minister explained whether the clause will take effect right at the last minute, and how schedule 2 and its transfer provisions will come into effect if subsection (1) has not been enacted.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Obviously, the purpose of clause 7 is to set out the arrangements clearly. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: it will take effect in different areas at different times as matters progress. I indicated that we would be looking for the first trust to be in existence from April 2008.

James Brokenshire: I hear what the Minister says about 2008. He has indicated that this will be brought in gradually, which reflects our debate on Tuesday. If my reading of subsection (1) is correct, however, it says:
“In consequence of the provisions of this Part, the local probation boards ... are abolished.”
May I press the Minister to make it clear that that abolition, once clause 7 comes into effect, does not cover all probation boards in one fell swoop and that it can be implemented in the gradual way that he seems to hint at?

Gerry Sutcliffe: It may help the hon. Gentlemanto know that clause 33 (2) allows for different commencement times. That point will be covered when we reach that stage. The intention is that the board would be abolished only if there was an application from an area or areas to become a trust. We have the appropriate amendments in place to allow for that transition. There is still discussion to be had on the criteria and I am happy for that to progress as part of the consultation with the wider community that we talked about. It is the wider community who will help us to solve the problems that we face.
The matter is contentious only until the hype is moved to one side and people listen to what the Government are saying. They then understand what we are about. That has happened in the various meetings and discussions that I have had with people over the last six or seven months. I am therefore happy for that consultative and co-operative discussion to take place.I hope that the passing of the Bill will allow more convivial discussion about the detail of how we will move forward on the trusts.
I hope that with that explanation clause 7 can stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I have heard what the Minister has to say but I have also read what he said on Tuesday. What he said on Tuesday was descriptive and not analytical. It was “What we will do” not “Why we are doing it”. The question I am asking him today is “Why?” and he has not answered it.
One can lose the will to live. This morning I wish to preserve myself for further battles so I will not cause more trouble than is strictly necessary. I do, however, think that the Minister needs to be a lot more analytical in the way he describes his policy. He needs to tell us why he does things and not just what he intends to do. If he looks carefully at Tuesday’s Hansard, he will see plenty of description of what the Government are going to do and who is going to be on the board, and on the trusts and so forth, but he does not at any stage tell us “I think this is a good idea because...” I will leave it there for the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Transfers of property etc and staff in connection with probation services arrangements

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I would like to draw the attention ofthe Minister and the Committee to paragraph 6. I appreciate that this is largely a mechanical set of arrangements. Assuming the trusts come through, it is all to do with the transference of obligations from the board to the trusts and the rights and so forth of the individuals employed. I want to ask a general question as the expressions that I am about to talk about are repeated in subsequent paragraphs.
Sub-paragraph (4) says:
“But if the employee informs the transferor or the transferee that he objects to the transfer...
(b) the contract of employment is terminated immediately before the date of transfer.”
Sub-paragraph (5) says:
“The employee is not to be treated, for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18), as having been dismissed by the transferor by reason of—
(a) the transfer of the contract of employment under the scheme; or
(b) the termination of the contract of employment under sub-paragraph (4)(b).”
If I were an employee of a board and objected to myself or my functions being transferred to a non-state provider, my contract would therefore be terminated and I would not be considered as having been dismissed. What would I be considered as? Redundant? Reassigned? Moved? Surplus to requirements? It is important for us to know the Government’s thinking behind the contractual arrangements between an individual and his employer. The same point applies to later paragraphs: those who are to be transferred against their wishes need to be given clarity, and those who do not wish to be transferred need to know what their rights are.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making an important point. If the Committee will allow me I shall go through what the schedule will do, as it relates to issues other than employment.
The schedule sets out what will happen when a local probation board ceases to exist during the transitional phase and, later, when business is transferred fromone provider of probation services to another. Itcovers transfers of property and staff under those circumstances, in each case enabling the Secretary of State to make a scheme setting out how the transfers will occur.
Paragraphs 2 to 4 enable the Secretary of State to make a property transfer scheme to transfer to him the properties and liabilities of a local probation board or relevant person—in other words, a provider of probation services. They also enable him to make a scheme to transfer property and liabilities in the other direction, from himself to a relevant person. In practice, probation boards do not hold significant assets. The probation estate, for example, is the property of the Crown and will remain so. Boards’ property is largely confined to office machinery, including workshop machinery for unpaid work, IT equipment and vehicles.
Paragraph 3 states that a property transfer scheme will take precedence over any other provisions that would restrict transfers. Compensation for the loss of right of reverter is to be paid by the transferor and/or transferee as appropriate, and the scheme may include a mechanism for resolving compensation disputes.
Paragraphs 5 and 10 are on staff transfer schemes. Our overall aim is to ensure that staff who transfer between providers of probation services have their terms and conditions protected by law. In many cases, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 will provide the appropriate level of protection. In cases to which TUPE does not apply, paragraphs 5 to 10 will enable the Secretary of State to make equivalent provision.
Paragraph 5 is intended to cover the various permutations by which transfers might occur. It enables the Secretary of State to make a scheme to transfer employees of a local probation board to another provider of probation services; to transfer employees between probation trusts or other providers, or to transfer employees from providers of probation services to the civil service and vice versa. In the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined, I would say that such an individual had resigned. It is important to note that a scheme may not be made unless any directions about consultation given by the Secretary of State have been complied with.
Paragraph 6 provides that when an employee is transferred under the scheme, his continuity of employment will be maintained and the rights, duties and liabilities of his previous employer transferred to his new one. An employee will, of course, be at liberty not to accept a transfer to a new employer, but in that case his contract will be terminated and he will not be treated as having been dismissed for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In other words, he will not be entitled to compensation as he will be considered to have resigned.
Paragraph 7 makes similar provision in relation to employees of probation boards who transfer to the civil service and paragraph 8 does the same for civil servants who transfer to the employment of a probation trust or other provider. Paragraph 9 makes it clear that the schedule does not prejudice an employee’s right to terminate his employment if his working conditions are changed substantially to his detriment. Paragraph 10 states that if a contract of employment with either a board or a trust is not transferred to a new employer, the contract will be terminated and the employee will be treated as having been dismissed for the purposes of the 1996 Act. The employee would therefore be entitled to compensation.
I am aware of the concerns expressed by staffabout what the future holds and the implications for them as individuals. Such anxieties are entirely understandable, but I believe that the provisions in the schedule demonstrate our commitment to safeguarding employees’ position when any changes take place. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be happy with that explanation.

Edward Garnier: I listened to the Minister, and no doubt everyone else in this room did as well, but who will do the more public explaining? Will he make a point of visiting employees of the current probation service to explain precisely what schedule 2 will mean for them? Will his officials go out proactively before the Bill becomes an Act to ensure that people working for the Government know precisely what their rights are and that they resign if they do not like what will happen, or is that something that people will just have to find out by reading the legislation?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I will take no lessons from the Conservative party—[ Interruption. ] The implication is that the Government do not want to protect employees—

Edward Garnier: I want it to be clear that I am simply asking for information. The Minister should not be over-sensitive. I know that the Government are in a hell of a mess, but he should not be too worried. I am simply asking how the matter will be dealt with. He is a reasonable man; he would not want anybody to be left in the lurch or not to understand the implications of his policy. I am simply asking about the mechanics of making the measures known to the people who will be affected, not criticising him.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. and learned Gentleman not only says that I am not analytical but wants to tell me how I should respond to his prompting. He asked whether we will communicate what individual employees’ rights are. I put on record this Government’s success in employment rights, which I am happy to have furthered in my role as Employment Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, and the various Acts that we have passed.
In no way will we not communicate with our work force about what will happen. We have been doing that regularly. The hon. and learned Gentleman mighthave information from the National Association of Probation Officers, a trade union, about its members’ concerns, and he might have seen what the Government have done to respond. We have made pledges to staff and continue to make them.
I have no doubt that the fullest of consultations and discussions will be held about what the future holds. I hope that some of the scaremongers will desist and that we can get down to ensuring that those doing what we all agree is a difficult job in difficult circumstances see their futures mapped out as quickly as possible. We will give them the fullest of opportunities to understand what the future holds for them. I have no hesitation in saying that employees will be fully informed about the future in direct mailings either from me or from officials.

Edward Garnier: I had not intended to touch a raw nerve. I simply asked how those who work for the probation service would be told about the contents of schedule 2. We all know that the public are not enthusiastic readers of legislation, albeit because an awful lot of Bills have come from the Minister’s Department.
Clearly, I have pressed a particularly sore point, and I apologise to the Minister for upsetting him at this hour of the morning. He knows my concern that the public and particularly those affected by schedule 2 should know of its contents and how it will affect them. No doubt he will put in hand arrangements to ensure that they do. It has nothing to do with pressure from outside bodies or anybody else. I am simply a humble seeker after truth, and that was my intention in inviting him to comment on schedule 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.